Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        11   OF 2016   (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 2964 OF 2015)

KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted. Matter is finally heard at this stage itself with  

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.   

2. The appellant herein appeared in the Intermediate Examination  

conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.,  Allahabad in  

the year 2002 and successfully cleared the said examination.  On  

that basis,  he pursued the Graduation and passed Bachelor of  

Arts  (B.A.)  in  the  year  2005.  Thereafter,  he  even  successfully  

completed his Post-Graduation course i.e. Masters of  Arts (M.A.)  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 1 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 2

in the year 2007 with a desire to pursue further studies.  He even  

joined LL.B. course and successfully cleared LL.B. examinations  

also in the year 2011.  He had the ambition to get himself enrolled  

as an Advocate so as to pursue the legal profession.  However,  

before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted upon him  

a big blow in the form of canceling his intermediate results of the  

year  2002  which  examination  was  conducted  by  Madhyamik  

Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.  Order to this effect, without putting  

the appellant to any notice and without affording any opportunity  

of hearing, was passed nine years after the said exam with the  

direction to confiscate his Certificate.  The effect of the aforesaid  

action of the respondent was not only take away the result of the  

Intermediate  Examination,  but  it  also  nullified  further  courses  

which he had pursued and passed in the meantime.

3. The reason for canceling the said examination by the Regional  

Secretary,  U.P.  Board  of  High  School  and  Intermediate  

Examination (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Board'), Varanasi  

was  that  the  appellant  had  simultaneously  appeared  in  two  

examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of Sanskrit Board  

with respect to Class X and equivalent examination and it was not  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 2 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 3

permissible  for  the  appellant  to  appear  in  two  examinations  

conducted by two different Boards simultaneously.

4. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated April 20,  

2011 passed by the Regional Secretary, Intermediate Education  

Board,  Varanasi  (respondent No. 3),  preferred a representation  

dated May 10, 2011 before the Director, Education (Secondary),  

Lucknow  (respondent  No.  2).  This  representation  was  also  

addressed  to  respondent  No.  3.  Request  was  made  to  both  

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to present his case and  

give him an opportunity of hearing.  However, nothing was heard  

on  this  representation  and  instead  consequential  orders  dated  

May 18, 2011 were passed giving effect to earlier orders dated  

April 20, 2011, thereby confiscating the Certificates of Award in  

favour of the appellant.   

5. The aforesaid actions of the respondents forced the appellant to  

challenge the said orders dated April 10, 2011 and May 18, 2011  

before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ  

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The learned Single  

Judge of the High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition vide  

orders dated July 08, 2013.  Intra-court appeal filed against the  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 3 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 4

said judgment before the Division Bench also met the same fate  

inasmuch as vide impugned judgment dated January 22, 2014,  

the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court,  thereby  affirming  the  orders  of  the  

Single Judge.  A perusal of the orders of the Single Judge as well  

as the Division Bench would reflect that the courts below have  

gone primarily by the fact that since the appellant admitted that he  

appeared in two streams in two different Boards in the year 2000,  

this  action  on  the  part  of  the  appellant  was  contrary  to  the  

Regulations and, therefore, the orders canceling the exam were  

rightly passed by the respondents.

6. Before  us,  Mr.  Pradeep  Kant,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant  has  made  a  neat  legal  argument.   He  submits  that  

though  the  impugned  judgment  proceeds  on  the  basis  that  

appearing in two examinations simultaneously for the same year  

is violation of the Regulations of the Board, this reason given by  

the  High  Court  is  clearly  unsustainable  inasmuch  as  no  such  

Regulation  is  shown  by  the  Board  which  prohibited  any  such  

candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year. The  

learned senior  counsel  further argued that  the impugned order  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 4 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 5

passed  by  the  respondents  for  confiscating  his  Certificate  of  

Intermediate exam was, otherwise also, contrary to the principles  

of  natural  justice  inasmuch  as  no  show  cause  notice  and  

opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before passing  

such an order, which was passed belatedly after a period of nine  

years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant.  

7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned  

senior counsel are valid in law and have to prevail.   The High  

Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents  

that  simultaneous  appearance  in  two  examinations  by  the  

appellant  in  the  same  year  was  'contrary  to  the  Regulations'.  

However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the  

learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.  Curiously, no such  

Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents.  On  

our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to  

this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation  

or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate  

Education  Act,  1921  or  Supplementary  Regulations  of  1976  

framed  under  the  aforesaid  Act  or  in  any  other  governing  

Regulations.   Therefore,  the entire foundation of  the impugned  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 5 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 6

judgment of the High Court is erroneous.

8. It  is  also  pertinent  to  note  that  the  appellant's  intermediate  

examination and result thereof was not in question before the U.P.  

Board.   No  illegality  in  the  admission  in  that  class  has  been  

pointed  out  by  the  respondents.  The  alleged  charge  of  

simultaneously appearing in two examinations,  one of  the U.P.  

Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect to Class  

X and equivalent examination which did not relate to admission in  

intermediate course.  The only provision for  canceling the said  

admission  is  contained  in  Regulation  (1)  of  Chapter  VI-B.   It  

details  the  procedure  for  passing  the  order  of  punishment  

canceling intermediate results  and,  inter  alia,  prescribes that  a  

committee  consisting  of  three  different  members  is  to  be  

constituted and entrusted with the responsibility  of  looking into  

and  disposing  of  cases  relating  to  unfair  means  and  award  

appropriate  penalty  as  specified  in  the  Regulations  itself.  

However, there is no allegation of any unfair means adopted by  

the appellant in the instant case and, therefore, that Regulation  

has no applicability.   Even otherwise, no such  committee was  

constituted.  Therefore, having taken admission in Intermediate  

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 6 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)

Page 7

on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board, which  

was recognised, and not on the basis of the result of Class X of  

the  U.P.  Board,  the  appellant  derived  no  advantage  from  his  

examination  of  the  U.P.  Board  while  seeking  admission  in  

Intermediate course.  Thus, from any angle the matter is to be  

looked into, the impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May  

10, 2011 passed by the respondents are null and void, apart from  

the  fact  that  they  are  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  

justice.

9. The appeal is,  accordingly, allowed with costs by quashing the  

aforesaid impugned orders and reversing the impugned judgment  

of the High Court.  The appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to  

all consequential benefits.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY  05 , 2016.

Civil Appeal No.                of 2016 Page 7 of 7 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2964 of 2015)